{"title":"边缘音乐史","authors":"M. Feldman, Nicholas Mathew","doi":"10.1525/REP.2021.154.1.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"LA T E L Y, A C R O S S T HE HU M A NI T I E S , H I S T O R I C I S M in its many guises has been in retreat—a retreat that music studies has in some respects hastened. This collection of essays asks why sound and music appear to induce exhaustion with history and historical method and how a renewed focus on musical practices might motivate fresh histories and novel forms of history writing. Such questions were the premise of a multidisciplinary Mellon-funded collaboration between Yale University, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Chicago, and King’s College London that met from 2016 to 2018. Charged with rethinking the relation of music to history, the participants ultimately wondered why scholars, musicological and non-, have so frequently deployed music to disrupt or delimit historical projects—indeed whether music itself tends to elicit or even cause such disruptions and delimitations. The ironies here are patent. Not long ago, musicologists would regularly posit history as the most efficacious cure for what ailed their discipline. The study of music, so it was thought, always risked having its head in the clouds, especially the vapors of German idealism. To write music history was to place music’s feet on secure ground—to resituate, rematerialize, and re-embody in ways that checked the transcendental and formalist tendencies of old. ‘‘History,’’ by this reckoning, also designated a place, one where values are produced, where things are exchanged, where bodies move, where politics is played out. And yet, as many have observed, music has never been an entirely convincing occupant of this place, whose solidity is specious at best. Vibrational, ephemeral, footloose, politically mobile, and semiotically uncertain, music forever raises the specter of old philosophical anxieties—about the relation of the aesthetic to the historical, of sensuous experience to rational knowledge, of political orthodoxies to the undercommons of insurgency and resistance, of the vivid present to the absent past. Small wonder that so many theories of music’s historicity have treated musics of all kinds as strange and exceptional historical actors, even improbable bearers of special historical insight. ‘‘Janis Joplin, Bob Dylan, and Jimi Hendrix say","PeriodicalId":47353,"journal":{"name":"Representations","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Music Histories from the Edge\",\"authors\":\"M. Feldman, Nicholas Mathew\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/REP.2021.154.1.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"LA T E L Y, A C R O S S T HE HU M A NI T I E S , H I S T O R I C I S M in its many guises has been in retreat—a retreat that music studies has in some respects hastened. This collection of essays asks why sound and music appear to induce exhaustion with history and historical method and how a renewed focus on musical practices might motivate fresh histories and novel forms of history writing. Such questions were the premise of a multidisciplinary Mellon-funded collaboration between Yale University, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Chicago, and King’s College London that met from 2016 to 2018. Charged with rethinking the relation of music to history, the participants ultimately wondered why scholars, musicological and non-, have so frequently deployed music to disrupt or delimit historical projects—indeed whether music itself tends to elicit or even cause such disruptions and delimitations. The ironies here are patent. Not long ago, musicologists would regularly posit history as the most efficacious cure for what ailed their discipline. The study of music, so it was thought, always risked having its head in the clouds, especially the vapors of German idealism. To write music history was to place music’s feet on secure ground—to resituate, rematerialize, and re-embody in ways that checked the transcendental and formalist tendencies of old. ‘‘History,’’ by this reckoning, also designated a place, one where values are produced, where things are exchanged, where bodies move, where politics is played out. And yet, as many have observed, music has never been an entirely convincing occupant of this place, whose solidity is specious at best. Vibrational, ephemeral, footloose, politically mobile, and semiotically uncertain, music forever raises the specter of old philosophical anxieties—about the relation of the aesthetic to the historical, of sensuous experience to rational knowledge, of political orthodoxies to the undercommons of insurgency and resistance, of the vivid present to the absent past. Small wonder that so many theories of music’s historicity have treated musics of all kinds as strange and exceptional historical actors, even improbable bearers of special historical insight. ‘‘Janis Joplin, Bob Dylan, and Jimi Hendrix say\",\"PeriodicalId\":47353,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Representations\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Representations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/REP.2021.154.1.1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Representations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/REP.2021.154.1.1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
LA T E L Y,A C R O S T HE HU M A NI T I E S,H I S T O R I C I S M在许多方面都在退缩——音乐研究在某些方面加速了这种退缩。这本散文集询问了为什么声音和音乐似乎会导致历史和历史方法的疲惫,以及重新关注音乐实践如何激发新的历史和新颖的历史写作形式。这些问题是耶鲁大学、加州大学伯克利分校、芝加哥大学和伦敦国王学院于2016年至2018年举行的由梅隆大学资助的多学科合作的前提。负责重新思考音乐与历史的关系的参与者最终想知道,为什么音乐学和非音乐学的学者如此频繁地使用音乐来破坏或界定历史项目——事实上,音乐本身是否倾向于引发甚至导致这种破坏和界定。这里的讽刺是专利。不久前,音乐学家经常认为历史是治疗他们学科失败的最有效的方法。人们认为,对音乐的研究总是冒着被抛在云端的风险,尤其是在德国理想主义的蒸汽中。写音乐史就是把音乐的脚放在一个安全的地方——以一种遏制旧的超越主义和形式主义倾向的方式重新定位、重新物质化和重新体现。”根据这一计算,历史也指定了一个地方,一个价值观产生的地方,事物交换的地方,身体移动的地方,政治上演的地方。然而,正如许多人所观察到的那样,音乐从来都不是这个地方的一个完全令人信服的占有者,它的坚固性充其量是似是而非的。音乐具有振动性、短暂性、自由性、政治流动性和符号不确定性,它永远引发了古老哲学焦虑的幽灵——关于审美与历史的关系,关于感性经验与理性知识的关系,对于政治正统与反叛和抵抗的不实,关于生动的现在与不存在的过去的关系。难怪这么多关于音乐历史性的理论都把各种音乐视为奇怪而特殊的历史行动者,甚至是不太可能具有特殊历史洞察力的人。”詹尼斯·乔普林、鲍勃·迪伦和吉米·亨德里克斯说
LA T E L Y, A C R O S S T HE HU M A NI T I E S , H I S T O R I C I S M in its many guises has been in retreat—a retreat that music studies has in some respects hastened. This collection of essays asks why sound and music appear to induce exhaustion with history and historical method and how a renewed focus on musical practices might motivate fresh histories and novel forms of history writing. Such questions were the premise of a multidisciplinary Mellon-funded collaboration between Yale University, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Chicago, and King’s College London that met from 2016 to 2018. Charged with rethinking the relation of music to history, the participants ultimately wondered why scholars, musicological and non-, have so frequently deployed music to disrupt or delimit historical projects—indeed whether music itself tends to elicit or even cause such disruptions and delimitations. The ironies here are patent. Not long ago, musicologists would regularly posit history as the most efficacious cure for what ailed their discipline. The study of music, so it was thought, always risked having its head in the clouds, especially the vapors of German idealism. To write music history was to place music’s feet on secure ground—to resituate, rematerialize, and re-embody in ways that checked the transcendental and formalist tendencies of old. ‘‘History,’’ by this reckoning, also designated a place, one where values are produced, where things are exchanged, where bodies move, where politics is played out. And yet, as many have observed, music has never been an entirely convincing occupant of this place, whose solidity is specious at best. Vibrational, ephemeral, footloose, politically mobile, and semiotically uncertain, music forever raises the specter of old philosophical anxieties—about the relation of the aesthetic to the historical, of sensuous experience to rational knowledge, of political orthodoxies to the undercommons of insurgency and resistance, of the vivid present to the absent past. Small wonder that so many theories of music’s historicity have treated musics of all kinds as strange and exceptional historical actors, even improbable bearers of special historical insight. ‘‘Janis Joplin, Bob Dylan, and Jimi Hendrix say
期刊介绍:
An interdisciplinary journal edited by renowned scholars, Representations publishes trend-setting articles and criticism in a wide variety of fields in the humanities. In addition to special topical issues, tributes, and forums, inside you’ll find insightful coverage of: •The Body, Gender, and Sexuality •Culture and Law •Empire, Imperialism, and The New World •History and Memory •Narrative and Poetics •National Identities •Politics and Aesthetics •Philosophy and Religion •Race and Ethnicity •Science Studies •Society, Class, and Power •Visual Culture